Britain inquiry into the Iraq war has been dealt severe blow by a pro-Israel activist on the inquiry committee who has given an interview to a Jewish settlers’ radio accusing his critics of “anti-Semitism”.

The response (to what Ambassador Oliver Miles and Richard Ingrams had accurately conveyed) seems to be consistent with what the former Israeli minister mentions about the anti-Semitism ‘trick’ in the following youtube:

In November 2009, Sir Oliver Miles, a distinguished retired diplomat with years of service in the Middle East, wrote an article in the Independent lamenting that two Jews had been appointed to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. He triggered a spat that threatens the integrity of the inquiry and exposes the tenacity of prejudice in sections of British society.

Sir Miles didn’t much approve of the other members, either. But he singled out the choice of Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert. The fact that they were Jews, and that Gilbert was also well known as a champion of Israel, would provide “handy ammunition” for attacks on the committee’s work, especially in the Arab media. Sir Miles was ticked off by the Times a few days later and there the matter might have rested. However, Sir Martin has now reignited the affair by suggesting that the attacks smack of antisemitism. Unaccountably he vented his ire in an interview on a rightwing Zionist online radio station serving Israeli settlers.

Sir Martin’s retort actually fuels the row and may even overshadow the interrogation of Tony Blair. At another level, the controversy throws into doubt the vaunted multiculturalism of modern Britain and lays bare a stubborn vein of intolerance that has blighted the treatment of immigrants and minorities for centuries.

In a confrontation on BBC Newsnight last night, Denis MacShane MP accused Sir Oliver of resurrecting prejudices about the Jews that were more typical of the 1930s. He protested that it was unacceptable to make religion a criteria for determining whether a person was fit for public office, no matter what the task. In fact, discrimination against the Jews persisted a lot longer than that. In his history of MI5, Christopher Andrews regretted that the security services refused to employ Jews long into the postwar era. But the spooks were only continuing a tradition that went back to the 19th century and a furore that eerily prefigures the one we are currently witnessing.

In 1876, an uprising of Bulgarian Christians against Ottoman rule provoked a murderous response from the Muslim Turkish authorities. William Gladstone, former prime minister and grand old man of the Liberal Party, was so enraged by the massacres of Christians that he published a pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East. In it, he lambasted the then prime minister Benjamin Disraeli for abandoning the victims in preference for a pro-Turkish policy. Even though it had long been British policy to support the Ottoman Empire, Gladstone ascribed Disraeli’s stance to the fact that he was born a Jew and therefore sympathised with the Ottomans who had treated their Jews fairly – unlike the new Christian states in the Balkans.

Writing to a Jewish correspondent who questioned this response, Gladstone explained: “I have always had occasion to admire the conduct of the English Jews in the discharge of their civil duties; but I deeply deplore the manner in which, what I may call Judaic sympathies, beyond as well as within the circle of professed Judaism, are now acting on the question of the East; while I am aware that as regards the Jews themselves, there may be much to account for it.”

Gladstone’s peculiar reference to those “beyond” the community of observant Jews was a swipe at Disraeli who had been baptised into the Anglican communion aged 12. He believed that Disraeli was perversely motivated by some residual racial loyalty. Gladstone had more respect for Jews affiliated to their community, but they fared little better. Their dual loyalty was simply more obvious and explicable.

Within a short time, Gladstone’s tirade was being echoed by eminent intellectuals, including Professor AE Freeman, also a stalwart of the Liberal party, and Goldwin Smith, professor of history at Oxford. In addition to claiming that money-grubbing Jews exploited Christian guilt over past oppression (such as the Inquisition) and controlled the press, Smith declaimed that Jews could not be loyal citizens because “their only country is their race; which is one with their religion”.

While he would no doubt dismiss the comparison, 134 years later this is exactly what Sir Miles is banging on about. Either he thinks it is a problem that Jews are serving on the Iraq inquiry because they have a dual loyalty or he thinks that less enlightened folk than him in the Arab world might draw this conclusion. The first possibility is dismaying but the alternative is no cause for relief. His response to the existence of bigotry is not to pour scorn on prejudice and defend the integrity of public servants who happen to be Jewish, but to appease it.

This suspicion of Jews is ingrained in certain quarters of Britain’s ruling class but it is not only the Jews who should be concerned. Muslims, Hindus, Roman Catholics and members of every minority should pay attention to the implications. If the religious affiliation or origin of members of the Iraq inquiry is relevant because it may be used against the inquiry or taken to explain its shortcomings, what of other departments of state and government agencies?

Are Muslims to be barred from the Ministry of Defence or Home Office lest a terrorist outrage be perpetrated by a Muslim? After all, someone might say: this is what happens if you put Muslims in charge of our security. Are immigrants or the children of immigrants to be banned from working in the immigration services? It would indeed be embarrassing if there was a mishap in the controls and the minister responsible was, heaven forbid of “immigrant stock”. What would the BNP say? And surely we can’t trust Northern Ireland in the hands of a Roman Catholic, in case something goes wrong. Or a Protestant for that matter.

You can see where this argument is leading. Of course, Sir Miles and those who think like him may object that it is only this inquiry and these Jews that present the problem. But then you can see where that argument leads, too.

The terms of reference for the new Iraq inquiry allow for the big unknowns to be tackled. And we might just get to the truth

Sunday, 22 November 2009

{caption} Apocalypse then: The US’s ‘shock and awe’ campaign in Iraq wreaked devastation. George Bush said he was inspired by the Old Testament {end}

The Iraq inquiry will start hearing evidence in open session on Tuesday, and it will almost certainly lead to fireworks. Let us hope the media cover it properly; five months ago, there was a sharp debate on Iraq in the Commons which the media ignored.

“Anyone with information” has been invited to get in touch, which includes serving officials and military. Some officials resigned because they disagreed with the war, but most stayed on. But there is plenty of evidence, including leaked documents, to show there was strong opposition to the war, and for good reasons. As a retired diplomat myself, I hope my former colleagues will not be shy.

The situation in Iraq is still horrible. More than 400 people died in violent incidents last month; more than 1,400 were wounded. Millions of Iraqis are still displaced, inside Iraq or in Syria, Jordan or elsewhere, with little prospect of their returning home. Water and electricity are limping along, the vital oil industry will take years to rebuild. British troops sent to train the Iraqi security forces were in Kuwait through the summer marking time, while the Iraqi government quibbled about their legal status.

We’ve had umpteen Iraq inquiries already, but this one should be different. Its terms of reference are open. Previous inquiries concentrated on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the misuse of intelligence to make the case for war, the “dodgy dossier” and so on. But there are plenty of other questions, starting with the big one: was this a war of aggression and therefore a war crime? There were two views about its legality, and the then attorney general seems to have held both of them.

What about the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa’ida? – it seems there were no such links. What happened to the civil planning for after the fighting? – according to Clare Short, who was a member of the Cabinet, there “were preparations that were then all junked, because of the hubris and deceit that went into preparing for war”. Were the arguments for and against war ever assessed by the FCO, and was formal advice submitted to the then secretary of state, the Cabinet and the prime minister? Here is Clare Short again: “All the Cabinet meetings were little chats: they were never a proper consideration of all the options.” Is it true that the Iraq experts invited to No 10 in November 2002 (two of whom also took part in the seminar organised by the inquiry on 5 November) decided not to tell Tony Blair whether they thought an invasion was wise or not because they thought he wouldn’t listen? We have heard a lot recently about the freedom of experts to give advice which is unpalatable to the Government, so why the self-censorship?

We need to know more about the exchanges between George Bush and Tony Blair. According to Colin Powell, the then US secretary of state, he and Jack Straw sometimes tried to get Blair to hold Bush back. “Jack and I would get him all pumped up about an issue. And he’d be ready to say, ‘Look here, George’. But as soon as he saw the president he would lose all his steam.” Can this be true?

When Bush tried to persuade President Chirac to go to war, Bush compared Saddam Hussein with Gog and Magog, obscure legendary figures named in the book of Ezekiel as enemies of the people of Israel. This sounds like a joke, but seems to be true. Chirac was baffled and his staff consulted a professor of theology who spilt the beans. Blair told his Iraq experts that Saddam was “uniquely evil”; the inquiry should ask him whether Bush mentioned Gog and Magog to him, or he to Bush.

The Prime Minister’s choice of the members of the committee has been criticised. None is a military man, Sir John Chilcot was a member of the Hutton inquiry and has been closely involved with the security services, Baroness Prashar has no relevant experience, Sir Roderic Lyne was a serving ambassador at the time of the war, and so on.

Rather less attention has been paid to the curious appointment of two historians (which seems a lot, out of a total of five), both strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war. In December 2004 Sir Martin Gilbert, while pointing out that the “war on terror” was not a third world war, wrote that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill” – an eccentric opinion that would seem to rule him out as a member of the committee. Sir Lawrence Freedman is the reputed architect of the “Blair doctrine” of humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.

All five members have outstanding reputations and records, but it is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.

Tony Blair’s responsibility for the Iraq war was a strike against him as a candidate for the role of president of the European Council. Perhaps the launch of the inquiry helped to kill the idea off. No European democratic institution has entertained the idea of electing someone under the shadow of a war crime charge since Kurt Waldheim became President of Austria in 1986.

Keep in mind that Rupert Murdoch helped get Tony Blair (via endorsing him in his ‘The Sun’ newspaper) in as Prime Minister as it was reported that he was like a member of his cabinet with all the continued communication that he had with him (keep in mind that Murdoch financed the American Enterprise Institute – AEI – where JINSA/PNAC/AEI Neocons like Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen and Bill Kristol were/are based). And Murdoch (via Newscorp) established the propaganda organ for them with the Fox (Neocon) News Channel (Murdoch’s London Times seems to be pushing propaganda intended to get US into the next war for Israel with Iran). And don’t forget about Lord Levy who financed Blair as well (click on the Rupert Murdoch and Lord Levy links at the following URL if interested further):

The Transparent Cabal provides extensive documentation from the public record to illustrate that the pro-Israel neoconservatives, who gained substantial influence in the George W. Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorism, provided the blueprint and much of the war propaganda for the United States’ war on Iraq. The activities of the tight-knit neoconservatives were hardly a secret conspiracy, but proceeded with a high degree of transparency, allowing for their documentation. Although the neoconservative involvement in the Iraq war has been discussed in the United States, it has largely been kept out of the mainstream because of accompanying lethal charges of anti-Semitism, and even when mentioned, the neoconservatives’ connection to Israel is often slighted or ignored.

The neoconservatives are largely, though not wholly, Jewish, and are strong backers of Israel, identifying with right-wing Zionism. As illustrated in my book, their war agenda for the Middle East paralleled earlier geostrategic plans put forth by Israeli Likudniks to destabilize and fragment Israel’s enemies for the purpose of enhancing Israel’s national interest. This is not to imply that the neoconservatives were consciously trying to aid Israel at the expense of United States, but rather that they view American interests through the lens of Israeli security.

The anti-Semitic charge, which serves to silence all debate, is now being applied in Britain, as a result of trenchant comments by Ingrams and former Ambassador Sir Oliver Miles. Most unfortunately, this attack came from one of the members of the inquiry panel, Sir Martin Gilbert. And another member, Sir Lawrence Friedman, has reportedly described those who point out the neoconservative connection to Israel as “conspiratorial,” when no secret conspiracy has been alleged.

It is essential to investigate all allegations thoroughly and thus not automatically rule out the contention that Israel and pro-Israel Jews were involved. If these allegations are totally without substance, then they should aired and refuted, as should any other significant claims. To intentionally avoid a discussion of this crucial issue would indicate that the inquiry is not an actual attempt to arrive at truth, but simply another government whitewash. And it is unlikely that the such an incomplete report would be persuasive to most of the world, especially the audience in the all-important Middle East, even if respectable subjects of the British Crown could be browbeaten into accepting its verdict in order to avoid the lethal label of “anti-Semitism.”

The situation started when Ambassador Oliver Miles (who was the Brit Ambassador to Libya) mentioned that the the Iraq war Inquiry consisted of two Jews who are Zionists (see following article which was posted above via http://tinyurl.com/IsraelvoiceonIraqWarInquiry well):

A spokesman for the ex-president has declined to comment on whether
any request has been made to George W. Bush, or if he would co-operate.

In Britain, the head of the Iraq war inquiry is to seek meetings with
members of the administration of former US President George W. Bush, over
the 2003 war.

John Chilcot confirmed on Monday he hopes to obtain evidence from American
officials, but did not say which specific individuals he wants to question.

“We cannot take formal evidence as such from foreign nationals, but we can
of course have discussions with them,” Chilcot stressed.

The long-awaited public hearings of Britain’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq
war began in November last year.

The inquiry has so far seen former Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw, current MI6 intelligence agency Chief John Sawers,
Head of Britain’s military Jock Stirrup and a host of ministers and
government officials offer testimony on the conflict’s origins.

Chilcot said his panel will question British Prime Minister Gordon Brown,
Foreign Secretary David Miliband and a number of other British officials in
a second round of hearings before summer.

He added that he also plans to gather evidence from US officials and
military veterans.

A spokesman for Bush has declined to comment on whether any request has been
made to the former president or if he would cooperate.

The inquiry has so far gathered much information about the lead-up to the
war, with former Foreign Policy Adviser Sir David Manning testifying that
Blair had assured Bush of backing “regime change” in Iraq, 11 months prior
to the 2003 invasion, during a meeting at the ex-president’s Texas ranch.

Recalling the meeting at the Crawford ranch in April 2002, Britain’s former
Ambassador to the United States’ Christopher Meyer, also said that Bush and
Blair had “signed in blood” an agreement to take military action in Iraq.

Meanwhile, military historian Lawrence Freedman indicated in questioning
that Bush had advised Blair he planned to topple Saddam Hussein even if the
despot cooperated with the United Nations weapons inspectors.

Details of private correspondence between the two former heads of Britain
and the United States have been provided to the panel, but have not been
released publicly.

Some lawmakers have demanded that the letters be made public, but the
government has declined.

According to data compiled by the London-based Opinion Research Business and
its research partner in Iraq, the Independent Institute for Administration
and Civil Society Studies, the Iraq war has left more than one million
Iraqis dead.

Moreover, a fifth of Iraqi households have lost at least one family member
due to the conflict.

The United Nations estimates that the number of displaced persons in Iraq
stands at more than four million.